The designs for a modern 200-foot-tall hotel and condo building to rise at 447 Battery Street, a site which is currently occupied by the three-story Cort Furniture Rental building at the corner of Battery and Merchant, have been drawn and formally submitted to San Francisco’s Planning Department for approval.

As designed by Heller Manus Architects for the Montgomery Realty Group, the proposed 19-story building includes a total of 182 hotel rooms over a 4,700 square foot restaurant and an underground garage for 24 cars.

And eight (8) condos would be spread across the top five floors of the tapered tower, with a single 4,300-square-foot penthouse and two private terraces across the top two.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

In 2016 major projects proposed dropped to 60 plus as I recall, second lowest since 2014’s 52 – IIRC. About 5 proposals a month in 2016. So far this seems to be the first new proposal of 2017. I may have missed some and I suppose it depends on what counts as a major proposal. In any event, it seems like a significant slowdown of new projects may be underway in SF.

As to this building – it could be worse. Its basically another box, but the boxiness is obscured by the exterior façade treatment. Hopefully that feature doesn’t get VE’d away if the project gains approval.

I agree the northeast could use more. It awkwardly drops off as you move towards Broadway. Unfortunately, that’s Peskin’s district. Good luck trying to get anything even considered with him and the Telegraph Hill crowd.

I agree the chances of this getting built are slim. Its not just the THD, a handsome brick building befitting Jackson Square will be demolished. For a few pricey condos that few can afford (I’d bet some are purchased as part-time residences) and some hotel rooms.

IIRC there was a proposal for a 20 or so story hotel nearby not all that long ago that never saw the light of day because of pushback from area residents.

Indeed. They are getting increasingly more rare and pretty soon we’ll just have Disney Land versions of them. Jackson Square is a fantastic neighborhood that somehow survived the 50s and everything following.

Also agreed that the hotel’s design is quite nice, but it can also be built elsewhere without destroying the Cort building.

If you keep digging, you might notice that the building’s original cornice has been removed; a new sash installed; the storefront, entry and lobby have been remodeled; and the building’s architecture was rated a 1 out of 5 in a City survey. Which is all to say, mitigating the loss and developing the site isn’t out of the question nor a long shot.

An obvious solution would be to keep the brick facade – it’s been altered so much the building’s no longer “historic” but certainly is related to Jackson Square. The site can take the height – just set back a bit with a modern tower (by someone more skilled than Heller Manus, IMHO) and you’re there. As for the THD, please, someone, make them go away.

How utterly ridiculous! What you suggest would be an absolutely hideous mishmash.

It’s brick and relatively old but of no real historic or architectural merit and provides no contextual continuity. Maybe if it were located within the Jackson Square District amongst similar buildings. But, it’s not at all.

It’s an outlier amongst examples of late 20th century commercial buildings including several hotels. The proposed building skillfully extends that urban theme into the 21st and should not be encumbered by a mediocre ghost of the past .

I’m saying this as someone who loves seeing vacant lots and soft sites being developed, and scoffs at anti-development arguments masquerading as “preservation” of insignificant buildings: I’d regret the demolition of the Cort building. It’s a strong facade, it’s very much at home on both Battery (the Battery is only one block past, and a set of handsome bricks buildings beyond that) and Merchant Alley, where a strong brick building is one lot away and several other historic brick buildings give the alley character.

There are many vacant lots nearby: a campaign to build the hotel somewhere else in this area could avoid stirring up the wrath of regular anti-development folks AND legitimate preservationists.

BTW, Orland, I’m a big fan of density and TOD – especially along Mission St. and in SoMa – I’m far from a NIMBY. And if one is versed in the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic preservation, one knows that preservationists prefer modern architecture next to historic buildings, in order to differentiate, and contrast to, the historic buliding.

I oppose this design and building even though I am usually a bit skeptical of historical preservation arguments. Jackson Square is a unique part of the city, where I had the pleasure to work for several years. The few brick buildings in the area deserve to be preserved or incorporated into new developments. The new design would be more at home in SOMA.

buildings are not capable of “deserving” anything. the residents of the immediate neighborhood and city at large deserve the preservation of their built environment, insofar as it has historical or architectural importance. which this particular building does not.

God I hope this goes through. The low-rise stagnation this part of town is stuck in is suffocating. Not everything old is historic. This low-rise brick building was built to accommodate the city’s needs 100+ years ago, and we should be free, as the builder was then, to build to suit the city’s needs today. Take some photos, make a museum exhibit out of them if you want, and then let’s get onto filling this lot with something nice and modern.